OpenEuphoria

Re: Profiling Under Windows & String Size

• Posted by "Lucius L. Hilley III" <lhilley at CDC.NET> Aug 04, 1999
• 891 views

1st your 1 gig HD is puny by todays standards.
2nd it isn't th HD space we are trying to conserve.
It is the precious 32Meg DOS Memory limit imposed on DOS.

Granted the interpreter is relative large at 720 KB but, that
doesn't dent the 32,768 KB available and the Megs of RAM that
can be conserved if a better byte storage scheme existed.

Assume that this new byte scheme BLOATS Euphoria into the
800 KB realm.  So now as Rob says,  You are WASTING 80 KB more
than you where before.  Assume you have written a program that
under the old scheme abused 16,000 KB of memory.  But, using
the new byte scheme you could store the same amount of data
using only 4,000 KB.  This frees up 12,000 KB of memory.
When you are freeing up 12,000 KB who cares about the 80 KB
wasted?

Now that I am off my high horse.  Lets get back to our happy,
memory wasteful, Euphoria coding. 8^)

        Lucius L. Hilley III
        lhilley at cdc.net   lucius at ComputerCafeUSA.com
+----------+--------------+--------------+----------+
| Hollow   | ICQ: 9638898 | AIM: LLHIII  | Computer |
|  Horse   +--------------+--------------+  Cafe'   |
| Software | http://www.cdc.net/~lhilley |  USA     |
+----------+-------+---------------------+----------+
                   | http://www.ComputerCafeUSA.com |
                   +--------------------------------+
> ---------------------- Information from the mail
header -----------------------
> Sender:       Euphoria Programming for MS-DOS
<EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Poster:       Kat <KSMiTH at PELL.NET>
> Subject:      Re: Profiling Under Windows & String Size
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Craig <rds at ATTCANADA.NET>
> To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 7:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Profiling Under Windows & String Size
>
> <snip>
>
> > > 2) In the documentation it states a "string" is simply a
> > > sequence of numbers. Does this mean each character
> > > takes 4-bytes of memory, or does Euphoria store them in
> > > single bytes until it has some compelling reason to do
> > > otherwise?
> >
> > They take 4 bytes. This has been discussed before.
> > It would be nice if they could only take one byte, and
>
> If they took one byte, they could not be upgraded to the upcoming 16bit
> characters, which will do something the current ascii 8bit byte has no
> allocations for: store all the Arabian, Japanese, Scandinavian, etc
> characters. Maybe someday the extra 16bits of the Euphoria character word
> can be used to store display info for that char such as font, underline,
> bold, colors, etc. I would have taken Euphoria to task for this apparent
> memory waste, if it weren't for the other benefits of the language, like
> transparent memory management, including virtual memory paging to the
hd,,,,
> with a one gig hd, i won't worry about bytes wasted in string storage.
> <pester mode on> I'd still like a private "goto" command tho...
>
> Kat
>